Umaswati Aur Unki Parampara - Book Summary

Here is a comprehensive summary of the provided Jain text, "Umaswati aur Unki Parampara" by Sagarmal Jain, in English:

Book Title: Umaswati aur Unki Parampara (Umaswati and His Tradition) Author: Sagarmal Jain Publisher: Z_Sagar_Jain_Vidya_Bharti_Part_6_001689.pdf Catalog Link: https://jainqq.org/explore/229186/1

This text delves into the crucial and debated question of which Jain tradition (Śvetāmbara, Digambara, or Yāpanīya) the revered Acharya Umaswati and his seminal work, the Tattvārthasūtra, originally belonged to. The author, Sagarmal Jain, systematically analyzes historical and textual evidence to establish Umaswati's era and, consequently, his likely tradition.

The Central Debate:

Śvetāmbara scholars attempt to prove Umaswati's Śvetāmbara affiliation by considering his Tattvārtha-bhāṣya and Praśamarati as his own works and highlighting Śvetāmbara-supporting facts within them.
Digambara scholars argue that the author of the bhāṣya and praśamarati is different from the author of the mūla-granth (Tattvārthasūtra). They also point to certain differences between the mūla-granth and the Āgamic beliefs of the Śvetāmbara tradition to establish his Digambara connection.
Neutral scholars like Pt. Nathuram Premi have tried to position Umaswati within the Yāpanīya tradition by identifying facts in the text that contradict both Śvetāmbara and Digambara traditions, and by showing his proximity to Yāpanīya beliefs.

Establishing Umaswati's Era as Key:

The author argues that resolving the question of Umaswati's tradition hinges on definitively determining his era. All attempts to date Umaswati place him between the 1st and 4th centuries CE.

Textual Evidence and Chronological Markers:

Saptabhaṅgī and Guṇasthāna Principles: Umaswati's works do not present the Saptabhaṅgī and Guṇasthāna principles in their finalized forms. This suggests he predates the complete formalization of these concepts. While some technical terms related to Guṇasthānas are present, indicating their developmental stage, it confirms Umaswati lived before their definitive establishment.
Ancient Commentaries:
- In the Śvetāmbara tradition, the Tattvārtha-bhāṣya is considered the oldest commentary. It does not clearly present the concepts of Guṇasthāna and Saptabhaṅgī.
- In the Digambara tradition, Sarvārthasiddhi is considered the oldest. It provides a clear and detailed description of Guṇasthānas.
- Later commentaries, like Akalanka's Tattvārtha Rājavārtika (5th century CE), present full explanations of Saptabhaṅgī and Guṇasthāna.
Other Jain Texts: Texts like Samavāyāṅga (Śvetāmbara Āgamas), Kaṣāyapāhuḍ and Ṣaṭkhaṇḍāgama (Yāpanīya tradition), and Kundakunda's works (Digambara tradition) mention these principles, and these texts are generally dated around the 5th century CE. This definitively places the composition of the Tattvārthasūtra before the 4th-5th century CE.
Sectarian Divisions: While disputes over the use of clothing and bowls began in the 2nd century CE, distinct sects like Śvetāmbara, Digambara, and Yāpanīya did not emerge before the 5th century CE. The earliest mention of Nirgrantha Sangha (Digambara), Śvetapaṭṭa Mahāśramaṇa Sangha (Śvetāmbara), and Yāpanīya Sangha appears in inscriptions from the 5th century CE (Halsi inscriptions).
Mūla Sangha: The Mūla Sangha is mentioned in inscriptions dated to 370 and 421 CE, slightly earlier.
Discrepancies in Tattvārthasūtra: The Tattvārthasūtra's alignment and discrepancies with the Digambara, Śvetāmbara, and Yāpanīya traditions suggest it was composed before the clear formation of these schisms. The author believes it dates from a time when these divisions had not yet fully solidified.
Scholarly Dating: Scholar Shri Kapadia dates the Tattvārthasūtra to between the 1st and 4th centuries CE, after the 1st century. 'History of Medieval School of Indian Logic' suggests 185 CE. Prof. Winternitz believes Umaswati lived when the Śvetāmbara and Digambara sects in North India were not fully separated, and his Tattvārthasūtra predates the sectarian divide.

The Dispute on Clothing and the Timeline of Schism:

The earliest literary information about sectarian division comes from Āryakṣema's Āvaśyaka Niryukti and Viśeṣāvaśyaka. This text mentions the origin of the Bhaṭṭikā tradition (division between the cloth-wearing and nude traditions in North India) 609 years after Mahavira's Nirvāṇa.
The dispute regarding the nudity or clothing of monks occurred between Ārya Kṛṣṇa and Ārya Śiva in the year 609 of the Nirvāṇa era. However, the clear division of traditions occurred through their disciples, Kauḍiṇya or Koṭṭavīra.
This implies that the clear sectarian division happened after 609 Nirvāṇa era. Considering Mahavira's Nirvāṇa is generally placed 470 years before the Vikram Samvat (with a 60-year debate), a Nirvāṇa era of 609 would correspond to approximately 199 Vikram Samvat if the 470-year difference is used, or 139 Vikram Samvat if the 60-year dispute is accounted for.
If Kauḍiṇya and Koṭṭavīra are placed 60 years later, the schism would have occurred around 259 Vikram Samvat (late 3rd century CE). The distinct development of the Śvetāmbara and Yāpanīya traditions would have followed approximately a century after this schism, as their names are not found before the 5th century CE.

Umaswati's Lineage and Scholarly Interpretations:

The author cites the Prakaraṇa Praśasti of the Tattvārtha-bhāṣya as a crucial source for dating Umaswati. According to this, Umaswati belonged to the Ucchairi branch, mentioned as Ucchanāgarī branch in the Kalpasūtra. This branch originated from Ārya Śāntishreṇika, who was the guru-brother of Śiṅgiri, the guru of Ārya Vajra.
Śvetāmbara paṭṭāvalis place the death of Ārya Vajra in the 584th year of the Nirvāṇa era. This would place Ārya Śāntishreṇika's lifetime between 470 and 550 Nirvāṇa era, meaning the Ucchanāgarī branch originated in the late 1st or early 2nd century CE. This aligns with Mathura inscriptions, which show the earliest inscription of the Ucchairi branch dating to Śaka era 5 (140 CE). Therefore, Umaswati must have lived in the 2nd century CE or later.
Mathura inscriptions mentioning Kaniṣka, Huviṣka, and Vāsudeva (78-176 CE) further support this dating, placing Umaswati in the late 2nd or early 3rd century CE.
Umaswati mentions his praguru (great-grandfather guru) Ghoshanaṇdi Śramaṇa and his guru Śivashrī. Scholar's research suggests a connection to Vācaka Ghoshaka, disciple of Gaṇi Uggahiṇi, from the Sthānikakula, which is related to the Kotikagaṇa to which the Ucchanāgarī branch belonged.
Ārya Kṛṣṇa and Ārya Śiva, involved in the clothing dispute (609 Nirvāṇa era), are also mentioned in Kushan-era Mathura inscriptions. The inscription mentioning Ārya Kṛṣṇa is dated Śaka era 95, placing him around 230 Vikram Samvat (late 3rd century CE). This aligns with the timing of the dispute.
If Ārya Śiva is considered Umaswati's praguru, then Umaswati would have lived in the early 3rd century CE. However, inscriptions from the late 3rd to early 4th century CE do not mention the terms Śvetāmbara, Digambara, or Yāpanīya.

Conclusion on Umaswati's Tradition:

The author concludes that Umaswati lived between the 3rd and 4th centuries CE. During this period, despite disputes over clothing and bowls, distinct sectarian identities of Śvetāmbara, Digambara, and Yāpanīya had not yet fully formed. The clear sectarian divisions, establishment of doctrinal beliefs, and the use of these names emerged in the 5th century CE or later.
Umaswati predates these clear sectarian divisions and the stabilization of community beliefs. He lived during a transitional period when these traditions and their doctrines were still consolidating.
Therefore, he cannot be definitively categorized as Śvetāmbara or Digambara in the modern sense. He is also not Yāpanīya, as the earliest documentary evidence for the Yāpanīya sect dates from the late 5th century CE.
Umaswati belonged to the Ucchanāgarī branch of the Kotikagaṇa, an antecedent of the northern Nirgrantha lineage, which later gave rise to Śvetāmbara and Yāpanīya traditions.
The author considers it inappropriate to link him solely to any of the later, fully formed Śvetāmbara, Digambara, or Yāpanīya traditions. His work reflects the ideas present before these sharp divisions, potentially showing influences from what would later become both the Śvetāmbara and Yāpanīya streams. He is placed firmly in the period before the clear sectarian separation.